Abolghasem Shahbazian; Sadegh Salimi
Abstract
Measures taken by governments during armed conflict to safeguard their essential interests sometimes cause damages to foreign investors. The investors thus affected seek remedies in the arbitration tribunals invoking breach of host government obligations to protect investments. The host government also ...
Read More
Measures taken by governments during armed conflict to safeguard their essential interests sometimes cause damages to foreign investors. The investors thus affected seek remedies in the arbitration tribunals invoking breach of host government obligations to protect investments. The host government also usually attempts to assert as defense non-precluded measures to prove its irresponsibility, or if it proves responsible, justify it by resorting to circumstances precluding wrongfulness in the customary international law. But since different courts do not consider the same requirements to invoke these rules, there is no certainty that the parties to the lawsuit will be able to invoke them and, as a result, the scope of government's obligations to protect the foreign investor during the armed conflict is obscure. To clarify the scope of the host government's obligations to protect the foreign investor during armed conflicts and balance the interests of the investor and the host government during the investment disputes arising from the armed conflict, this article explores the possibility and requirements of invoking circumstances precluding wrongfulness and non-precluded measures and the relationship between them.
Sadegh Salimi
Abstract
After more than 70 years since the last and so far the only prosecution of the crime of aggression in an international judicial body, the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over aggression was activated in 17 July 2018. It took nearly two decades since the ICC Statute adoption in 1998 ...
Read More
After more than 70 years since the last and so far the only prosecution of the crime of aggression in an international judicial body, the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over aggression was activated in 17 July 2018. It took nearly two decades since the ICC Statute adoption in 1998 for the states parties to agree on a definition of crime of aggression and a method to activate ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime. In the revision conference of 2010, the states parties reached an agreement regarding the definition of the crime and some jurisdictional matters. In spite of pressure from permanent members of the Security Council, the ICC jurisdiction was not subjected to prior approval of the Council. Nevertheless, to exercise its jurisdiction, the aggressor state must be a state party to the Statute and accepted the ratifications. Furthermore, if a state party does not accept the amendments, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime of aggression committed by that state party’s nationals or on its territory. This mechanism is a great challenge to the ICC and people who hoped ICC could hold national leaders accountable for the illegal use of force against other states.
